Would the applicant face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention in case of his removal to Kyrgyzstan?
Do ethnic Uzbeks charged with crimes which are not directly related to mass disorders and interethnic clashes in Osh and the Jalal-Abad Region in June 2010 face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention in case of removal to Kyrgyzstan (see, by way of comparison, R. v. Russia , no. 11916/15, 26 January 2016; Tadzhibayev v. Russia , no. 17724/14, 1 December 2015; Kadirzhanov and Mamashev v. Russia , nos. 42351/13 and 47823/13, 17 July 2014; Makhmudzhan Ergashev v. Russia , no. 49747/11, 16 October 2012)?
In the domestic proceedings, did the competent national authorities assess adequately the applicant’s claim that he would be exposed to a risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment if removed to Kyrgyzstan?
Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective administrative or judicial domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? Did this remedy in principle and in the applicant’s case afford for the due consideration of these complaints? Did it provide for an automatic suspensive effect in respect of the applicant’s transfer to Kyrgyzstan?